Honorary Research Lecture ASEV Annual Meeting, 1999, Reno, Nevada Sustainable Grape Productivity and the Growth-Yield Relationship: A Review G, Stanley Howell” Research reports and experimental-efforis during the last century are presented with the goal to encourage discussion of balancing grapevine fruit yieke and vine growth and leal area. Frult and subsequent processed quality are equally relevant economic issués ds we strive to create conditions for both sustainable grapevine productivity and vine capacity for tolerating abietic and biotic stress episodes. Its proposed that methods to achieve vine balance will vary with regard to macrociimate and cultivar, but will be most critical for those macroclimates commonly called coo!-climate regions. Regardiess, vine balance is most readily understood when based on the principles of vine carbon balance as mediated through welhunderstood factors such as com? leaf area/gram fresh weight of fruit at harvest and allmetric practices as the Ravaz Index and the Growth- Yield Relationship. Key words: Vine balance, minimal pruning, leat area, crop ratio, Ravaz Index, carbon balance, photosynthesis, vine yield, vine size, fruit maturation ‘The challenge of commercial grapevine culture and produc- tion is the ability to consistently produce a quantity of ripe grapes sufficient {0 cover all costs of production and return a profit to the producer. There are numerous models on which this may be achieved. Variables such as value of the cultivar, viticultural management, perceived quality of the crop, production costs, and production consistency all come together to determine whether the production is sustainable. In recent years “sustainable” has been co-opted as a buzzword for various methods of culture, including “integrated,” “bio-dy- namic,” and/or “organic.” For purposes here the term is used in its earlier, simpler form; sustainable production has both viticultural and economic dimensions. In this sense we say that sustainable production is acollective methodology that produces highest yields of ripe fruit per unit land area with no reduction in vine vegetative growth and does so over a period of years at costs which return a net profit. Polesso, Deparment of Horcuture, Mltioan Stale Unies, Eact Lansing. Ml 48828 (erat howstippioumsveas) Acknowledgments: The els tepores ner youl not Neve Deen posse without the ‘Suton a tides and pote erase Sos, Leah Clea, Chars Edson, ‘Try Mansi Mite MoLeen Dave hie Faat Pari, Guat Son, Mat Saigo Cao Tsconcaae anv nee Wape The eereautors of ealess.e ard ands ae gall ‘lnonocgo Fatr Gralla ares le, Weert, An Lato, ttn Nowe, ROD oo Neon Shave, ana Reaat are, Enssuregamentare fai eupporby Malonl rape Cooperatva, Michigan Grane an Vine frst Gouc,ond Eater cla! eoneerium hae med conse research possible Comms vineyards tet atone uo de cea) a vineyard xvid ra, vated ‘ra Taso inade legan Cony, Fen ey Vinee: Been Coury. Dorgan Vineyards (Ce to anja rancor County, Chass Chal Looanay Coen, Best ‘Viegae Got hebor Vineyres an Lepr te Gels: an Burn Cooly, Caner ot ineyade Manne Vere, and Bob Rages vines ‘rly, wih eves reid ose cacti and research rts thar have srad ‘ny andariandeg a vise: New Yank Agta Experiment Sion, Gener; Ucn ‘Those Cxrtarouy Ney Zener Feuer Obs! Wand Garena, Waders, ‘Size are my oma neon ot 30 Yan Micha” State Univer ‘Copight©2001 byte Ameria Sei fr Elegy end Vieuue Al is reseed 165 Recently, Gladstones [10] used similar words to describe the term “balance.” Balance was achieved “when vegetative vigor and fruiting load are in equilibrium, and consistent with high fruit quality. 5 able” and “balance” are con- ” The terms “sus cepts consonant with the material to follow. ‘A few premises are worth noting, Viticulture in cool-climate portions of viticultural production requires accommodation of those climatic factors near the limits of commercial grape pro~ duction, These environmental limits are the basis for the follow- ing premises: (1) for any genotype-environment interaction there is an optimum method of culture to achieve highest yields of ripe grapes of acceptable quility over years; (2) good viticulrural prac- tices must result from the application of sound principles of vine growth and development; (3) sustainable levels of highest fruit quality at maximum yield can occur only through the achieve- ‘ment of vine balance through the application of the leaf arcasfruit ‘weight ratio or the Growth-Yield Relationship. Minimal Pruning and the Growth-Yield Relationship ‘The introduction of minimal pruning (MP) by Clingeleffer and associates in Australia (3-5,57,58] has proven to be a major breakthrough for winegrape culture in that region, It has been shown to be superior to traditional spur-pruned and cane-pruned approaches in both sustainable yield and fruit and wine quality, (On the surface, the data would seem to challenge the validity, of premise 3. Clearly MP works well for winegrapes in Sunraysia, Australia, and the vine physiology on which the method is posited seems to suggest that once vines equilibrate, the approach should be broadly applicable even in cool-climate ‘Am. d. Enol, Viti, 52:3 (2001)88)— Howell regions, The following material is presented with two goals: (1) to share the basis of our concern about applicability of MP tech- nology in cool, short-season viticultural macroclimates; and (2) to encourage a earbon-budget approach toward finding solutions to problems involving an array of abiotic and biotic stresses as well as vineyard practices, Vine Balance Although the discussion of vine balance has expanded in re- cent years, it is not new, Ravaz [47] is the earliest source of rel evant information, and the Ravaz. Index suggests that the ratio of fruit to wood is the key to achieving both fruit quality and consistent production, He also showed a general relationship between leaf production and fruit production. As he assessed the close relationships between leaf and wood production, he chose the latter for his Ravaz Index, as he sought a means for viticulturists to put the relationship into practice, He chose this allometric approach because he wanted growers to use it Inthe early 1920s, Partridge [37-42] put forward a very simi- Jae concept. He reasoned that a vine produced two forms of yield each growing season: reproductive yield and vegetative yield, Balance was achieved when yield of ripe fruit was maximized with no detrimental impact on vegetative growth. If the contri- bution by Partridge had stopped there, he would be of only pass- ing note; it was merely a modification of Ravaz's concepts. His genius was to take the next step. He proposed to use the weight ‘of cane prunings produced in year I as an indicator of the upper limit of a vine’s capacity to produce and ripen a crap in year 2. While numerous factors can reduce yield in a given year, this upper limit was a major improvement in achieving vine balance. ‘This was a major step. Balance as defined by the Ravaz Index. was a postharvest evaluation. It could tell the viticulturist how nearly actual balance had been approached, but only after the fact. Partridge called his approach the Growth-Yield Relationship. T compare the contribution of Partridge and the subsequent practical refinements by Shaulis [22,48-52,59} to that of Dar- ‘win with relation to organic evolution. Gould [11] argues con- vincingly that the idea of evolution had been around for centu- ries prior to Darwin’s time. The genius of Darwin was his defi- nition of a means by which it could be achieved—natural selec- tion, Partridge and Shaulis, analogous to Darwin, produced practical methodology by which the process could be both ex- plained and put to practical use [37-39,42,48,52] to achieve bal- ance and sustained production. ‘The application of vine balance concepts is complicated by several considerations: (1) grapevines are perennial plants and for that reason the positive or negative impact of a season’s vine~ yard management can be measured for one or more years after- ‘ward (20); (2) in cool-climate viticultural regions there are strong annual fluctuations in weather conditions during the growing season [16]; and (3) under conditions of high bud number rela- tive to vine capacity, the weight of mature canes relative to leaf’ area declines [32,33]; there is more leaf area per unit weight of canes. In any event, a prescription approach to vineyard manage- ment under such conditions is unacceptable as it limits both yield and quality in good vintages and will yield unripe fruit and re- Am. J. Enol. duced vine growth, measured as vine size (Kg cane pruningsimeter of row), oF as actual area of exposed foliage, in poor vintages. Leaf Area and Crop Balance As noted by Ravaz, Partridge, Shaulis, and subsequent re~ searchers (14,17,18,43,44], balance may also be considered as the amount of leaf area required to ripen a unit of crop weight ‘This is commonly expressed as em? leaf area /gm fresh weight of fruit. The literature reports a range of 7 to 14 em? /em to achieve ripening. The proposal of a 2 X range of difference im- mediately attracts our attention, What makes it possible for a cultivar to achieve vine balance at 7 cm? in one cultural situa tion and require 14 em? in another will be addressed in this dis- cussion, Crop Balance and Growing Season Length Grapevines cultured in a region allowing a significant period of time postharvest with vines retaining functional, exposed leaf area will require less leaf area to ripen the crop. This postharvest period allows vine. crop levels that likely not only use the cur- rent season’s photosynthetically produced carbohydrates but also mobilize carbohydrates stored in vegetative tissues [23,26,55], A long foliated period after harvest could allow the reaccu- ‘mulation of carbohydrates in storage tissues that will be neces- sary for the final stages of bud and inflorescence differentiation and support the spring growth flush in year 2 [50]. Thus, a long foliated period postharvest could potentially ripen a larger crop per unit leaf area, Crop Balance and Light Intensity Another likely factor related to crop balance is light inten- sity over the growing season [25]. Grapevine culture in California's Central Valley or the Sunraysia district of Austra- lia is greatly facilitated by high light intensity. Few days in these viticultural regions do not exceed the 800 to 1000 y Em? s', which is saturation for leaf photosynthesis (25,53,54), and many days the level is nearer 2000 jw E m* s', By contrast, cool-c mate regions may be limited by growing season length, light intensity, or both, Smart [53] has reported that about 8 to 10% of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) striking a canopy passes through the leaf, and that is a key component of his canopy ‘management philosophy regarding leaf layer number. When the Tight intensity is at or above 2,000 p E m? s“, the second leaf layer can receive 200+ j1 Em? s', well above the leaf compen- sation point. When ambient PAR is at 800 jt E m? s, the re- sulting 80 y Em? s! PAR is at or below the compensation point (Howell and Trought, 1997, unpublished data). Further evidence ‘suggests that such shade leaves lack the capacity to achieve the rates of photosynthesis of* sun leaves,” even when placed in ful), sun [21]. Consistently high light intensities improve photosyn- thesis of interior, shaded Jeavesyand can reduce the leat area necessary to ripen the crop. Limitations in Cool-Climate Viticulture ‘The culture of grapevines, near the cool-clirnate limits of commercial production often lacks one or both of the above- . 52:3 (2001)168 — Howell Table 3 The influence of diferential defoliation at veratson on year 1 Brix response (A), year 1 and ysar 2 yield and bud harsiness response (B), and the relative impact of these treatments on Brix in year 1 and bud ‘rilfulness in year 2 (C). Aftor Mansfeld and Howell [26] ‘A. The Influence of ciefoliation at veraison on year 1 Brix response Treatment? _Veralson? September3_ September 20° _A “Brix Control F 96 13.82 1708 T4a Cordon F at 1328 167 ab 76a Shoot F 8g tara 161 be 72a Node F 20 1258 1896 68a Node D 2.0 1258 168 esa Shoot D ag 12200 155 66a Gordon 0 4 1126 142d Bib Control D a7 4b 1126 28¢ Fest ast se Ee B. Year + and yaar 2 vino yiold and busi hardiness response, Yielainode (9) Bud hardiness. bof shoot- %of primary ot Treatment Year1 Year? lessnodes bud mortality control D ConolF 136ad 2708 © 228 eed 7 CordonF 190ab 2972 35 be 1886 186 ShootF 144ab 253a S2ed 16 08 18 NodeF 18306 238a © 2te 78d ge NodeD 1972 233a 190 aid oo ShootD 185ab 238a 38 1486 i7e Coren 149ab 183b 45b 41.4b 470 Control 1256 286 69a 84a too Fest Ba . Relative impact of imposed carbohydrate stress on % soluble solids in year 1 and bud fruitfulness in year 2 % Soluble solids Fruitfuines Treatment _A%SS _%ofeontrolF —_gminede _%of control F ContolF = 7.48 100 a 270 100a CordonF 7.8.8 103 a 237 a Ba Shoot F 728 ora 253.8 4a Node F 68a 92a 2088 8a Node D saa 93a 2asa 86a Shoot D 6a ea 2398 9a Cordon = 5.16 9b 153b 6b ContolD 5 se 230 ge ey a =e ae 5F = follaled, D = defoliated; contra = elther fully lated (F) or faly defolaied (0). Cordon, shoot, and node treatments were 50% foliated (F} or detoliated (0). For cordon, all ieavas on 802% of the vine cordon were removed, For shoct, all leavas trom altemate ware removed. For nade, leaves were removed from alternate nodes. Timing of defoliation: +7 August Harvest date Numbers within a column having the sare letter are not diferent by Duncan's New Multiple Range Test. and ns indicate significance at 0.01, 0.001, and not significant, espec- the fruit sink on the cordon D treatment to mobilize car bohydrate from the cordon F treatment and move it up to, 6m and result in increased sugar in fruit, Even more im- pressive was the response of the fruit on the control D treat- ment vines. In the absonce of leaves, the fruit mobilized stored carbohydrates and resulted in a 2.0 °Brix increase in the fruit. The power of the postveraison fruiting sink is teat ‘Training System and Vine Carbohydrate Dynamics In the 30 years of the 1970s through the 1990s, a revo- Iution in cultivars used for wine has occurred in Michi- gan and other portions of the Great Lakes region. The cul- tivars used for 95% of Michigan wine in 1970 accounted for less than 5% of the wine in 1995 (Mich. Liquor Con- trol, personal communication), This cultivar change re- sulted in questions conceming whether approaches deemed, desirable or acceptable for a Vitis labruscana Bailey cul- tivar with a procumbent, growth habit would be appropri- ate for cultivars possessing a more upright growth habit. ‘To resolve this question, experiments were undertaken in- volving a range of training systems. ‘These have been re- cently summarized [15]. Our effort sought to understand principles, not just evaluate practices. New approaches to vine training oc- ‘cur nearly every year. Once principles are uncovered, the application of those principles should be possible after an initial assessment of a cultivar’s growth habit. We should not be required to reinvent the wheel every time a new training system is suggested. We employed four training systems that differed in height of the fruiting zone and were head or cordon trained systems: low head, high head, low cordon, and high cordon. ‘We have conducted this kind of experiment on nine cul- tivars and conducted each for a minimum of five years [17,18]. The amount of perennial wood varied significantly with each training system tested. All vines were double trunked so the length of perennial wood for each system was: 1.8 m for low heads 3.6 m for high head; 4.3m for low cordon; and 6.1 m for high cordon, With the excep- tion of the cultivar Aurore, we have invariably seen the relationship: high cordon > low cordon > high head > low head. This has been true whether we were considering vine size, vine yield, fruit composition values, or bud and cane cold hardiness. The impact of perennial vine structure on vine performance has also been reported by May [27] in Australia Similarly, work in Switzerland [23,24] employing a trunk modification yielding a 12 to 15% increase in pe- rennial wood resulted in significant increases in fruit “Brix ‘as compared to the traditional trunk conformation. Collectively, these data suggest that choice of training system has considerable impact on the level of sustain- able production of ripe grapes. Training systems with more ‘Am. d. Enol. Vitic, 62:3 (2001)‘Sustainable Grape Productivity and the Growth- perennial wood show favorable response of yield, vine size, fruit composition, and cold hardiness [15,17,18] Old vines make better wine? These experiences also led us to a conjecture: as vine training systems with greater quantity of perennial wood resulted in fruit with superior fruit composi tion values, could the oft-expressed sentiment that “old vines make better wine” be a result of greater volume of perennial ‘wood and concomitant increased carbohydrate storage area? Tf 50, the response would be most often expressed in poor vintages. ‘That, of course, would be the condition when it could be most readily detected. This speculation can be easily subjected to crit cal experimental evaluation, and I expect it will be in the com- ing decade. Grapevine Photosynthesis and Carbohydrate Partitioning Experiments in grapevine photosynthesis and carbohydrate partitioning have been conducted in cooperation with an array of associates in Switzerland [1,20,23,24], New Zealand [2.43.44], and Michigan [6-9,13,31,33,34]. The methods em- ployed involved assessment at the level ofthe single leaf, whole potted vines, and whole mature vines in the vineyard. Potted vine studies have been of two types: vines produced by the Mullins Technique (36] and two-year-old bearing vines in 20-liter pots [6-9,31-34} An array of cultivars has also been em- ployed, including Chambourcin, Char- donnay, Concord, Niagara, Pinot noir, Seyval, and Vignoles. The following prin- will be influenced by the methods used to measure it and the ‘manner in which such data are interpreted. Single-leaf measurements do have considerable utility, The key to their effective use is to define precisely the question asked and to be very critical in any extrapolation of leaf response to canopy response [34,43]. Crop load and carbohydrate partitioning. One of the find- ings often reported based on single-leaf assessments has been the positive influence of crop load on vine photosynthesis [5,57]. ‘That seems to be intuitively obvious; more fruit should reduce any fruit-based feedback inhibition of photosynthesis to a mir mum. Thus, more CO, should be fixed per vine and that should be shown as increased dry weight per vine. ‘Table 4 suggests that the assumption is untrue. An evalua- tion of partitioning data at fruit set, veraison, and harvest shows shifts in the relative dry weight of the various vine organs but shows no difference in total vine dry weight on any measure- ment date [7-9]. The amount of crop per vine influences where the carbohydrates produced accumulate, At harvest, fruit ac- counted! for over 40% of the total vine dry weight for the most heavily cropped vine. This high percentage of dry weight accu- mulates at the expense of vegetative tissues, particularly the roots. This dry weight data is supported by a subjective assess ment of root quality (Table 5). Between 60 to 80% of the grape- Table 4 Influence of vine crop load on tha quantity and percentages of dry matter parlitioned to diferent vine structures at fru sot (A), veralson (B), and harvest (C) Aiter Edson et al. (9) ciples are consistent with data derived from Percent of total Total vine these very different cultivars, Clustersivine Fruit Leaf hoot Wood Root _—_dry wtt.(g) Predicting Vine Carbon Status ees Single-leaf versus whole-vine assess- s eit hike cee. eoxshieass 2 ment of photosynthesis. Since CH,0 is the $ Aerie Hee asin eee a2 vine’s metabolic currency for growth, differ~ ; ie ibe fa Ee, SES =a entiation, fruit ripening, and a host of other ° i tre hh and a ra processes, photosynthesis becomes a candi- Uinesrregression. T° ing ins) ane net te date for assessing a circumstance in vine culture that may influence sustainability. 8: Vera'son ‘One goal in a vine photosynthesis study is 6 a 66101328 207 to produce a measurement that ean predict 4 wo 171 139 98 905. 201 whole-vine performance, One approach to 75 18.3 136 tet 31.0 193 achieve that goal is to assess the photosyn- i So ca ie thetic CO, fixation of a precise area on a he co ae ns We oe single leaf and then multiply that by the leaf so Ue ne area on the vine. An alternative approach. Harvest involves the assessment of CO, fixation by z es “ate aee oe the entire eanopy [31]. Using vine dry weight a 128 Seu aor and whole-vine photosynthesis as the basis 2 ia6 Bo 927 298 for assessment, the single-leaf assessment is 1 182 140347 238 not greldictive for either factor, the whole~ 0 194 jot 407 286 vine assessment is predictive of vine dry Linear regression z= ns = ns weight status [7-9,33,34]. Based on these data, the perceived influence of vine photo- synthesis on sustainable yield of ripe grapes i not available. respectively. ‘and ns indicate statistical significance at 0.05, 0.01, 0.001, and not signticant, ‘Am, J. Enol. Vitle. 62:3 (2001)170 — Howell Table 5 influence of vine crap loaci on roots at itierent phases of the growing season, Atler Edsan et al. [9 Grapevine leaf area and veraison, Under conditions of se- rious leaf area reductions occurring Fruit sot ‘Veraison Clusters/vine Dry wi. (g) Roo! class Drywi(g) Rootelass Diywt (g) Root class prior to veraison, a source:sink im- balance can result. The created source inadequacy can have an im- Harvest 6 204 28 596 23 4 266 20 613 27 2 264 30 598 25 1 30.9 28 732 45 o rat na na na Linear regression nse As p 3 pag ne pact similar to that of excess crop ae ae ‘with a resulting delay in the onset a es of veraison. As with fruit matura- sigat ae tion curves {43}, all berries ult- os mately pass through veraison, but *Rating system: 1=poor, fow active roots; Segood, many vigorous roots na: not available. ©," and ns indicate significance at 0.05, 0.001, and not signiicant, respectively vine roots produced each growing season die, an ongoing pro- cess of tumover of the fibrous white roots [28]. The data in Table S support the dry weight data and suggest that the observed de- cline in root quality results from reduced replacement af roots as older roots dic [28,60,62] ‘This observation differs from the Australian experiences (3] and that of Robert Wample in Washington State [personal com- ‘munication, 2001}; no reduction in roots was measured. As noted above in the discussion on light intensity and growing season length and in Table 1, near-ideal conditions for culture elimi: nate factors that commonly limit carbon assimilation and accu- mulation in cooler climates. Grapevine Crop Level and Fruit Maturation on Vines Potted vines. The data collected to date suggest that if the growing season with adequate growing conditions is long enough, the vine will ripen the crop (Table 6) [9]. What is not shown is a critical component of grape quality—varietal char- acter, Anecdotal experience and micro-vins produced from grapes in the experiment reported in Table 6 suggest that fruit ‘composition is generally associated with varietal character (data not shown) but is not predictive of the intensity of that varietal character. The grapes that achieved mature °Brix earliest had greatest varietal character for this cultivar. Importantly, this will vary with variety and the compounds that collectively produce varietal character. ‘Table 6 ‘Influence of vine crop foad on vine yield and frit composition. After Edson et al. (3 the treatment with most restricted leaf area to fruit weight ratio was delayed by over 30 days. Mature vines in the vineyard. While potted vines are convenient for partitioning studies, we would never be comfortable putting 4 conceptual viticultural principle into practice without first evaluating the response of matire, bearing vines in a vineyard, ‘The data in Table 7 result from an experiment 6n Concord vines conducted with a factorial statistical design. There were three vine size categories selected with the namber of nodes re- tained at pruning ranging from 20 to 160 per vine. The experi- ment was conducted from 1991 to 2000 [35]. Similar data have been produced in other research efforts [29,30]. The key point of these vineyard data is their agreement with those gained by experimentation on potted vines. The above-ground response is very similar. We therefore make the inductive inference that the factor not measured, that is, root dry weight, also responded in a similar manner to the potted vines. This inference should be subjected to critical direct assessment in the vineyard. Early Development of Leaf Array and Crop Maturation Another idea that seems intuitively obvious is the positive impactoof early leaf array on total vine carbon assimilation over the growing season. Barly canopy fill, it would seem, should trap sunlight that would otherwise strike the vineyard floor [57,58] Like the previously mentioned case of increased Pn and crop load, the data do not support the hypothesis. Data in Tables 7 and 8 show a different response, Concord vines were at equilib- rium with a range of either 15 t0 91 buds (Table 7) or 17 and 66 buds (Table 8) retained per meter of row. Dif- ferences in leaf area at bloom and veraison coupled with the leaf area:fruit weight ratio favor the larger bud number in every case, but fruit maturation (based on fruit compo- pahenioverisrelienvestia Hanes sition values) is delayed for the larger bud lyst RS Yokel (0) SS Bi i 6H STARA BA DOTA number treatments, Early leaf area develop- 6 507804 ment was not an advantage once vines were 4 521 194 805-13? 76 al equilibrium with the imposed treatments. 2 3a 18S 30k 1508707 1 288, 198 6310148 218 3.63 at Photosynthesis and Leaf Age Linear regression SS ang ind eine ©, and ns indicate significance at 0.05, 0.001, and not significant, respectively. Data reported by Kriedemann [25] and Poni and Intrieri [46] raises one concern ‘Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 52:3 (2001)172 — Howell The 1990s produced the greatest variation among growing seasons in Michigan since temperature recording began. ‘The years 1991, 1998, and 1999 were among the best on record for growing degree days. ‘The 1992 vintage was the worst. ‘Such variation creates a dilemms for the producer. Does a producer crop at the level to achieve balance in 1992, and lose the amount of ripe crop possible in 1991, 1998, and 1999? Al- temnatively, does the producer crop for vintages like 1991, 1998, and 1999 and risk an unsaleable crop in 1992? This is a reality in coo!-climate viticulture, with major economic implications for the viticulturist. In fact, we do not know how much crop level should be adjusted downward in response to one or more envi- ronmental and/or biotic stresses, ‘This area deserves much more attention by viticulturists for two reasons: the scenarios on glo- bal warming suggest a more variable climate situation, and we will have fewer pest control options in the future. We must an- ticipate conditions that will result in variable ability to ripen a crop. In any event, it is clear that a prescription approach can- not be satisfactory, Crop adjustment and vine halanee. Crop adjustment pro- vides one solution. This approach would allow the viticulturist to crop at the level that would achieve balance in the historical “best” vintage and adjust the crop downward prior to veraison based on the status of GDD accumulation halfway between bloom and veraison. The vine would easily adjust [35,38,55,56] and even compensate [1] Pest Control, Sustainable Grape Production, and the Growth-Yield Relationship ‘The future of commercial viticulture is perceived through a cloudy crystal ball under the best of circumstances, but one fact seems very clear: future grape production will have fewer chemi- cal tools to combat pest problems. A likely result will be peri- odic episodes of stress when vines are subjected to insect oF disease attack on vine foliage. Greatly limiting our ability to predict the impact of these episodes is the lack of information about economic thresholds. How much leaf damage occurs be- fore there is an economic impact? We do not know the impact of powdery or downy mildew, leathopper burn, or Japanese beetle reduction of leaf area on lesf CO, assimilation or net pho- tosynthesis. Nor do we know whether the impact of the biotic stress changes with relation to shoot and fruit growth and matu= ration phenology of the vine, Based on work with abiotic stresses reported above, we expect that timing will be important. Unfor- tunately such data are very scarce (2) Applying the principles of the Growth-Yield Relationship to abiotic stresses provides direction for future efforts on pest-in- duced stresses, In a poor vintage, crop adjustment can produce the balance appropriate for that seasons climatic conditions. A similar approach for pest stress should be possible once the phy ological and economic impact of the pest stress has been deter- mined. ‘Within vineyard variation and sustainable production. In addition to seasonal variation is the reality that soil variation within the vineyard can produce a considerable range of vine vigor and resulting vine size and leaf area, Again, prescription approach cannot work: each vine must be considered individ ally or small vines will be avercropped and large vines undercropped. This can result in the smaller vines becoming ‘weaker and producing unripe fruit and the larger vines produc- ing inadequate yields of fruit ripened in the shade of an exces- sively vigorous vine canopy [29,30]. At most vineyards, crop control is done at pruning, based on numbers of nodes retained Because this pruning is being done by hired pruners, the ability to achieve such individual attention is very small, However, the future does hold promise, The Future Several features of the viticultural future are visible now: 1. Site mapping via global positioning satellites (GPS) to determine where “problem” areas exist. 2. On-board harvester yield assessments are a reality, In the future, these data coupled with GPS data will monitor low production areas within a vineyard and provide a basis for aitention and cultural modification, 3, Vine size or estimates of exposed canopy at veraison will be possible using existing tractor-mounted computer- based visual technology coupled with GPS positioning. The potential crop based on leat area or Partridge’s Growth- Yield balance concepts will be determined by the computer for each individual vine. 4. Crop load estimates will be made using methods noted above in item 3 at the time of the prebloom spray when flower clusters are easily visible, Crop adjustment in mid-July (for northern hemisphere) ‘or about halfway between bloom and veraison will be accorn- plished mechanically so that the input of each individual vine from items 3 and 4 above plus GDD status are integrated and individual vine balance achieved. ‘These five features are now possible. The databases and the research required to produce these databases are lacking, In ad- dition, it will become increasingly important for the viticulturist to employ the most advanced methods of monitoring vineyard growth and pest status and to adopt the principles of vine bal- ance. As yields approach the upper limit for any macro- or, mesoclimate, the buffering capacity of photosynthesis compen- sation will be reduced, and further stresses that negatively in- fluerice vine carbon bslance, regardless of origin, can produce disastrous results. That is the challenge for sustainable viticul- ture in the twenty-first century, and meeting that challenge will have is roots in the leaf area:fruit weight ratio, the Ravaz In- dex, and the Growth-Yield Relationship, as understood by New- ton Partridge and Nelson Shaulis. Conclusions ‘The concept of vine balance is nearly 100 years old, Ravaz, introduced the concept and Partridge and Shaulis pursued meth- ‘ods to use it as a means to predict vine performance via the Growth-Yield Relationship. This allometric method substituted vine growth or vine size (weight of cane prunings per vine) for leaf area per vine and the leaf area relationship to fresh fruit ‘weight (7 to 14 cm? per gram), That relationship is tied to vine balance and long-term sustainable viticulture. ‘Am. J. Enol. Vitie. 52:8 (2001)Sustainable Grape Productivity and the Growth-Vield Relationship — 173 ‘Training systerns employing maximum amounts of perennial ‘wood that also facilitate sunlight penetration into the fruiting and renewal zone are to be preferred. Spur systems on corons may be unacceptable on some cultivars duc to low fruitFulnoss of basal buds [15]. Photosynthesis in the period preveraison is not source-lim- ited under typical vineyard conditions, and leaves seldom ex- ceed 50% of their measured photosynthesis capacity. ‘This has been demonstrated on Mullins vines, two-year-old potted vines, and mature bearing vines using several cultivars and different Vitisspecies. Single-leaf photosynthesis measurements are not corrctated with either whole vine photosynthesis or total vine dry weight increases. Whole vine photosynthesis is closely related to vine dry weight increases, Minimal pruning and/or machine hedging in some form, coupled with a capacity for timely crop adjustment, offers a good potential for future likelihood of achieving maximum sustain- able yield of ripe grapes actoss a range of cultivars. The key to the success of this effort will be vine-by-vine control of crop adjustment to achieve vine balance under conditions of variable crop load, previous year’s vine size, and current season's growth and maturation status preveraison. Leaves on vines with either inadequate leaf area or excess crop (low source:sink ratio) retain chlorophyll, delay senescence, maintain high photosynthetic rates, and delay the aging re- sponse characterized by leaves on similar vines possessing fully expressed canopies: Inadequate leaf area delays veraison and lengthens the time from veraison to ripening. Vine balance as understood by Ravaz, Partridge, Shaulis, and others remains a key to the achieving of maximum consistent production over long years of production. Modifications in our approaches to vine culture and management should begin with an assessment of that modification’s impact on vine balance as understood based on the Ravaz, Index, the Growih:Yield Rela- tionship, and em? leaf area/gram fresh weight of fruit at harvest, Literature Cited 1. Candoti-Vasconcelos, M. Carmo, W. Koblet, G.S. Howell, and W. Zwaifel. Influence of defoliation, rootstock, training systam and leat position on gas exchange of Pinot ncir grapevines. Am. J. Enol, Vitis, 45:173-180 (1994), 2. Clearwater, L.M., M.C.T.Trought, and G.S. Howell. Impact of powdery mildew infection and fungicide apalicalion on grapevine photosynthesis, Submitted to Aust. J. Grape Wine Sci. (2000), 8. Clingeletfer, PR. Vine response to modified pruning practices. in Proc. (of the Second NJ. Shaulis Grage Symposium, Fredonia, NY. iM. Poo! (Ed), pp. 20-80. Cornell University Press, Genova, NY (1933), 4, Clingeletfer, PA., and LR. Krake. Responses of Cabernet franc ‘grapevines to minimal pruning and virus infection, Am. Enol. Vic. 49:31 37 (1982) 5, Downton, W.JS., and \W..R. Grant. Photosynthetic physiology of spur ppruned and minimal pruned grapevines. Aust J. Plant Physiol 19:308- 816 (1992). 6. Edson, CE,, and GS. Howell. A comparison of vine architecture systems 2t efferent crap loads: Leaf photosynthasis, vine yield, and dry ‘matter partioning, Vitic. Enal, Se, 48:90-95 (1993). 7, Edson, CE, G.S. Howell, ard vA. Flore, fluence of crop load on photosynthesis and dry matter parttioning of Seyval grapevines. |. Single leaf and whole vine response pre- and post-harvest. Am. J. Enel. Vitc 44:199-147 (1988). 8, Edson, CE, G.S. Howell, and JA, Flore. Influence of crop load on photosynthesis and dry matter partitioning of Seyval grapevines. | ‘Seasonal changes In single leaf and whole vine photosynthesis. Am. J Enol, Vito, 4:469-477 (1895), ©. Edson, CE, G.S. Howell, and JA. Flore. Influence at crap load an photosynthesis and dry matter partitioning af Seyval grapevines. Ill ‘Seasonal changes in dry matter partitioning, vine morphology, yield, and fruit composition, Am. J. Erol. Vite. 46:478-485 (1895), 10. Gladstones, JS. Viticulture and Environment. Wine Titles, Hyde Park Pross, Adelalde, Australia (1992). 11. Gould, 8. Shades of Lamarck. In The Panda's Thumb, pj. 76-84. \WAW. Norton, New York (1980). 12 Howell, GS, Cultural manipulation of vine cold hardiness, In Proc. of the Second Int. Cool Climate Symposiurn. R, Smart et al. (Eds.), pp, 93+ 102, Auckland, New Zealand (198) 19. Howell, G.S. Carbohydrate parltioning in grapevines. Jn Proc. of the Fourth Annual Romeo Bragato Conference, pp. 57:69. New Zealand Grape Growers Council (1998). 14. Howell, G.S. What is belanced pruning and why should wine grape ‘growers care about it? Vintner Vineyard 4(1)'3,11 (1890). 15. Howell, G.S,, D.P. Milley D. Jackson, and D. Stocking, Selecting the ‘optimum training system for grapevines in Michigan. Michigan Grape & Wine industry Council anid Michigan State University, East Lansing (2000) 416, Howall, G.S. Grapevine crop contra: Implcations fr yl, fruit com- position and subsequent wine quailty, cold hardiness end sustainable production, pp. 1-18, Heartland Wine Coalition, Ohio Stale University, ‘Columbus (2009), 17. Howel, G.S., TK, Mansfield, and J.A. Wolpert. lnfuence of training system, pruning severity, and thinning on yield, vine siza and trut quality of Videl blanc grapevines. Am. J, Erol, Vic. 98:108-1 12 (1987). 18, Howell, G.S., D.P Miller, C.E. Edson, and ALK. Striagler Influence of training system and pruning severity cn yield, vine size, and truit composition of Vignoles grapevines, Am. J.Enol. Viti. 42:191-198 (1991). 19. Howell, GS., B.G. Stergios, and S.S. Stackhouse. Iniertelation of productivity and cold hardiness of Concord grapevines. Am J.Erol Vii, 29:187-191 (1978). 20. Howell, G.S., M. Carmo Candatf-Vasconcalos, and W. Koblat. Re- ‘sponse of Pinot noir grapevine growth, yield and fruit composition to defol- alion the previous growing season. Am. J Eno| Vic. 45:188-191 (1984), 21. Hunter, Ja, and JH. Visser. The effect of partial defoliation, leat position and developmental stage of the vine on the photosynthetic activity of Vitis vinfera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon. §. Alf. J. Ens) Vit. 10:67-73 (1969), 22. Kimball, ., and N, Shauls. 1858, Pruning effects on growth, yield and Imatury of Concord grapes, Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. So. 71:167-178 [1958 28, Koblet, W., M. Carmo Candoll Vasconcelos, £. Aeschimann, and G:S, Howell Influence of detaliaion, rootstock, and traning system on Pinot noir grapevines. |. Mobilization and reaccumuiation of assimilates in ‘wacty tissue. Viti. Enol. Sci, 48:104-108 (1993), 24, Koblot, W., M. Carmo Cando Vasconcslos, W. Zwsitel, and G.S Howell. Influence of leaf removal, rootstock, and training eystom on yield ‘and fru composition of Pinot noir grapevines, Am. J. Enol, Vito. 45:181- 187 (1994)174 — Howell 25. Kriedemann, PE. Photosynthesis in vine leaves as a function of ight intensity, temperature and leaf age. Viis 7:213-220 (1988). 28. Mansfield, T., and G.S. Howell. Response of soluble solids ‘accumulation, frutuiness, cold resistance ard onset of bud growth to differential defoliction stress at veraison in Concord grapevines. Am. J Enol, Viti, 32:200-205 (1981). 27. May, P.Tha grapevine as a perennial, plasllc and productive plant. n Proc. of the Sixth Australian Wine Industry Tech, Conf, pp. 40-49. Adelaide, Australia (1987) 28, McLean, M., G.S. Howell, and AJM. Smucker. A minihizotron system for in situ root observation sludies of Seyval grapevines. Am. J. Enol, Vitic. 49:67-89 (1992). 28, Miler, DP, and G.S. Howell, Influence of vine capacity and erop load ‘on tho yiod, fruit composition and sugar production per unit land area ol Concord grapevines. In Proc. of the Fourth Int. Symposiuir en Cool Climate Enology and Viticulture. T, Henick-Kling etal. (EdS.), pp. 94-98. Rochester, NY (1996). 30, Miller, D.P. and G.S. Howell Influence of vine capacity and crop load fon canopy development, morphology, and dry matter partitioning jn Concord grapevines. Am. J. Enol, Ville. 49:183-190 (1938) 31, Millr, DP, G.S. Howell, and JA. Flore. A whole-piant, open, gas- exchange system for measuring net photosynthesis of potted woody plants. HorlScience $1(6):944-945 (1996), 32, Miller, D.P, G.S. Howell, and JA. Floto. Effect of shoot number on potted grapavines. | Canopy development and morphology. Ar. J. Enol. Viti, 47:244-250 (1896), 33, Miller, D.P, G.S. Howell, and JA. Flore. Etlect of shoot number on potted orapevines. Il. Dry matter accumulation and partitioning. Am. J Enol. Vii. 47:251-256 (1996). 34, Millar, DP, G.S. Howell, and JA. Flore. Influence of shoot number land crop load on potied Chambourcin grapevines. I Waole-vine vs. single-leaf photasynthesis, Vitis 36:109-114 (1997). 35, Mille, D.P, G.S. Howell, and RK. Striegler. Reproduclive and vegetative response of mature grapevines subjected to differential cropping stress. Am. J, Enol. Vitic. 44:435-440 (1993), 36, Mullins, MG., and K. Rajaskekaren. Fig cutings: Revised methad for producing test plants of grapevine cultivars. Am. J. Enol. Vic, 32:25- 40 (1981), 837, Partidgo, N.L. Tha fruiting habits and pruning of he Campbell Early ‘rape. Mich, Agr. Expt. Sla. Tech. Bull. No. 106 (1930). 88, Partridge, N.L. The influence of long pruning and thinning upon the quality of Concord grapes. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort Sci. 28:144-146 (1931. 39, Parttidge, N.L. The use of the growth-yold relationship in feld trials with grapes. Pros, Am. Soc. Hort Sci. 23:131-134 (1925). 40, Partridge, N.L. The frlting habits and pruning of the Concord grape, Mich. Agr. Expt, Sta, Tech, Bull. No. 69 (1925). 41, Partridge, N.L. Growth and yield of Concord grape vines. Pros. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci 23:84-87 (1925), 42, Partridge, N.L. Cultural methods in the bearing vinoyard. Mich. Agr Expt. Sta. Cicular Bull No, 130 (1927) 43, Petrie, PR., M.C.T-Trought, and G.S. Howell. Grovah and dry matter partitioning ef Pinot noir (Vitis vinifera L.) in relation to leal area and crop load, Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 6:40:46 (2000) 44, Petri, PR, MGT. Trought, and G.S, Howell. Fruit composition and ripening of Pinot noir (Vitis vinitera L.) In relation to leat area, Aust. J Grape Wine Res. 6:46:51 (2000) 45. Polo, PAR, M.C.T.Trought, and G.S, Howell, fluence of leat aging leat area, and crap load on photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, ard ssenesence of grapevine (Vitis vintera Lev. Pinat noi leaves. Viis 28:91 36 (2000) 46, Poni, S, ©. Intfer, and O. Silvestran. interactions olleal age, fiting, ‘and exogenous cytokinins in Sangiovesa grapevines under nan-rrigaled conditions. |. Gas exchange. Am. J. Enol. Viti. 45:71-78 (1994). 47, Rava2, ML, Leffeusllage de la vigne. Annales d LEcole Nationale agriculture de Montpellier. 14:216-244 (1911), 48, Shaul, N. Cultural practices for New York vineyards. Cornell Ext. Bull. No, 805 (1980), 49, Shaulls, N.Soma atfects of pruning severly and training on Fredonia ‘and Goncard grapes, Prac. Am. Sac, Hort. Sc. 51:263-270 (1948) 50, Shaulis,N., and. Pratt. Grapes: Their growth and development, Farm Research. Comell Liniv. No. 401 (1985). 51. Shaulls, N.,and WB. Robinson, The effect of season, pruning severly ‘and trelising on some chemical characteristics of Concard and Fredonia, ‘grape juice. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 62:214-220 (1953) 52, Shaulls, N,, 1D. Jordan, and J.P, Tornkins. Cultura practices for New York vineyards Comell Ext. Bui. No. 805 (1956). 53. Sma, REE, Principles of grapevine microclimate manipulation wit Implications for yield and quail. A review. Am. J. Enol. Vic. 98:230-239 (1985). '54.Smart, LE, and MD Robinson. Sunightinto Wine: A Handboc for Wine Grape Canopy Management. Wine Tiles, Hyde Park Press, Adelaide, Australia (1981) 55. Smihyman, FP, GS. Howell, and 0.P. Miler. Influence of canopy Configuration on vegetative development, yield and fruit composition of ‘Seyval blanc grapevines. Am. J. Encl. Vic. 48:482-491 (1997) 56. Smithyman, R.P, @.S. Howell, and DP. Miller. The use of compatition for carsohycrates among vegetative and reprocuctive sinks to reduce fruit sot and Botrytis bunch rot in Seyval blanc grapevines. Am. J.Enol. Viti. 49:163-178 (1998). 57. Sommer, K.J., and PAR. Clingeletter. Comparison of leat area development, leal physiology, berry maturation, juice quality, and fruit yield of minimat and cane-pruned Cabernet Sauvignon. In Proc. of the ‘Second N.J. Shaulis Grape Symposium, Fredonia, NY.F.M. Pool (Ed), pp. 14-19, Cornell University Press, Geneva, NY (1993). '58, Sommer, Kl, PA. Clingeletfer, and ¥. Shulman. Comparative study ‘of vine morphology, growth and canopy development in cane-pruned and, iminimal-pruned Sultana. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 35:265-273 (1995). 59. Tompkins, J and N. Shaulis, The Catawba grape in New York. I. ‘Some effects of sevarity of pruning on the production of fruit and wood. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci 66:214-218 (1955). 60.Trought, MCT. and G.S. Howell, Carbohydrate balance of grapevines: How does it control rut quality? In Proc. Grape anc Wine Spring Scivool. E. Costello (Ed.}, pp. 77-83. Lincoln University, New Zealand (1997}. 61, Van Den Brink, C., N.D. Strommen, and AJ. Kenworthy. Growing degree days in Michigan, Mich. Agr. Expt.Sta. Res. Roport No. 181 {1871}. 62. Van Zyl, JL. The grapevine root and its onvironmant. S.Africa Dept. ‘Agr. Water Supply Tach. Comm. No, 215 (1988). ‘Am. J. Enel. Vite, 52:3 (2001)